Why aren't RPGs poplular

[Krensky]

It's not that simple, since publishing faces fairly high fixed costs (author, artists, etc.) and fairly low variable costs (each extra copy of a book is relatively cheap). And consignment makes stores willing to carry long-shots at all.

No it doesn't. What it does is make retailers stupid and lazy and makes it very, very hard for new and upcoming authors since retailers stop paying attention to the market. If they take a long shot, it's almost always because the publisher made them to get the latest Twilight or Dan Brown book.

The rule of thumb in mass market print runs is for every book you buy, you are really paying for two.

The reason I detest the consignment system has little do with the overall economics of the publishing industry. From the standpoint of publishing as a whole, it’s really no big deal. It simply means that they have to build into their price structure the fact that they have to print about twice as many books as they will actually sell. (What happens, in effect, is that when you pay eight dollars for a paperback in a bookstore, you’re actually buying two books—the one you’re taking home with you, and the extra copy of the same book that is going to get pulped to keep the whole circulation stream going.) Well, they did that a long time ago, and things have been chugging along well enough since.
No, the real problem with the consignment system from my standpoint is that, combined with the major changes in the distribution industry over the past two decades or so, it tends to make bookstores stupid. “Stupid” in the functioning sense that since they don’t take most of the risks of bad decisions they make but can pass them onto the publishers, they make a lot of bad mistakes. What’s probably more important, to me at least, is that they are also incredibly careless.
What I mean by that is this: Because of the sloppiness of the consignment system, major chain bookstores typically spend little time and effort (much less money) keeping careful track of all their titles. Instead, they concentrate almost entirely on the few big blockbuster titles—which is where they make most of their profits—and tend to ignore everything else.
But “everything else” means well over 99% of their titles. If any other retailer was as careless with most of their inventory as bookstores are, they’d go out of business pretty quickly. But bookstores don’t care that much, because most of the burden for their screw-ups winds up getting borne by the publishers thanks to the consignment system.
For all authors except the tiny number of top-selling ones, that means the system is a burden on them also. For those authors—and I’m one of them—it means that not only is their livelihood completely dependent on the market but, in this instance, it’s a market that has the brains of a moron.
Again, trust me on this one. I don’t know any successful author who hasn’t gritted his or her teeth when they see the way that bookstores so often are obviously paying no attention to sales. There will be one or even no copies of a book of theirs which is actually selling quite well, right next to multiple copies of a title by some other author that they know isn’t selling well at all.
What’s far worse is the plight of new and midlist authors, whose novels can have excellent sell-through but will never earn out their advances because the bookstores don’t order enough copies. They presumably would order more copies if they started paying attention to their whole inventory, and began noticing that some titles by new authors have a sell-through of 70% or 80%, which is well above average. But . . . they just don’t bother. If those lost sales were costing the bookstores money, they’d start paying attention to the problem. But they don’t, so they just shrug it off.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So I see. It is in fact just that very same snobbery and dismissal resurrected for the 21st century.

No, you don't see.

I'm not talking about anagram names. I'm not denigrating people who don't use fake accents. I'm not ridiculing people who only play alter-egos of themselves.

I'm talking about people who, not infrequently, do not even bother picking a name for the PC at all. The space may even be left blank.

The PC in question doesn't have the player's personality- it has no discernible personality at all.

In order to not say "The Wizard" or "The Ranger" every few minutes- especially since they may not be the only one of that class in the party, we are forced to refer to the PC by the player's name or "your PC."

This makes it even more difficult to deal with when there may be more than one campaign active. We can't very well say "Next week, bring Bob, your wizard." when there are 20 years worth of virtually identical unnamed PCs- some of whom may have been active in the same campaign (due to deaths and new PC gen)- and only the HP and campaign-specific magic items may differ. They are as interchangeable as chess pawns or Go pieces.

This is not a knock on their ability to play and contribute to the fun of all (including themselves). It is an observation that they do not play a "Role"- at least in any sense that a psychologist or actor would recognize. For them, the PCs are no more than waldoes for them to manipulate objects within the environment as defined by the DM- IOW, the campaign.

Or is it your assertion that someone playing the classic arcade game Gauntlet is also "role playing?" That "Elf is about to die." and "Wizard needs food badly." are indicative of actual role play? That someone playing the Scottie Dog with Boardwalk and Park Place is roleplaying?

If that is so, what separates playing a board game or arcade combat game from RPGs?

In the broad spectrum of role-play, it is equally possible and acceptable to play a PC in a detached, 3rd party manner as it is to play with an immersive style, complete with costume. But you eventually reach an point on the spectrum when you are are no longer role-playing. There is, at each extreme, a cutoff.

On one end, the person is merely rolling dice and taking actions based upon the results. At the other, the person is delusional and can no longer discern the difference between real and fiction.

 

[Ariosto]

On one end, the person is merely rolling dice and taking actions based upon the results.

Ah, yes, at last I understand. If there is no interacting with the imagined environment from the imagined perspective, then, as you say, "what separates playing a board game or arcade combat game from RPGs?"

There actually seems to be rather a trend in that direction, though, and on a couple of vectors; your friends may have been set in their ways long enough to be on the next cutting edge!

One obvious way to make "RPGs" popular would be to apply the name to quite another kind of game that is already more popular.

On the other hand,

This is not a knock on their ability to play and contribute to the fun of all (including themselves).

One thing D&D has long had going for it is the facility to incorporate people playing "different games" at the same time.

 

[BryonD]

I read an article a few weeks back (sorry, no link) that was about how WOW players think about characters. They had actually studied what part of the brain was active while talking about various characters.
It was written in laymen's terms, and I'm nothing more than a layman on this topic, so perhaps some detail is lost, but the point was clear and interesting.

When players talked about themselves, the part of the brain that controls thoughts about self was active.
When players talked about other players, the part that controls thought about other people was active.
When players talked about other player's *characters* the part that controls imagination was active.
When players talked about *their own character* the part that controls thoughts about self was active.

I agree that there are very different kinds of roleplaying. There are deep in character roleplayers who find it very important to know great details about their character's past and relationships and motivations and are really inside the skin of that character. And their are players that are enjoying vicarious empowerment through a kickass fantasy avatar of fairly generic nature. He may know little more than that his character is from vague, generic barbarian encampment, but that is made him tough and strong and damn good at killing orcs. And the next five characters will be from, functionally, the exact same vague village and will be strong and tough and damn good at killing orcs. But both these players are roleplaying. Both of them are having fun. And I am certain that if you read their brain activity, they would both be thinking of "self".

It is hard to even really describe the difference because it would not be accurate to say that the barbarian player is not "deep in character" or "inside the skin" of his role. But there is clearly some difference.

The difference can be a problem or not. In extreme cases the generic character's lack of depth can be a source of disruption for the "in the skin" character's experience, like someone suddenly questioning you about a grocery list right when you were deeply engrossed in a great novel. It jolts you out of the moment. Whereas, from the other end, the "poser" is too hung up on admiring his character and wasting time that could be spent enjoying being potent, rather than just being else.

Fortunately, it is my experience that the extremes are rare and quality players of both camps (and yeah, it is much more a spectrum than two camps) can share and play off each other far more than they conflict.

 

[mmadsen]

No it doesn't. What it does is make retailers stupid and lazy and makes it very, very hard for new and upcoming authors since retailers stop paying attention to the market.

I see. You understand the publishing industry much better than the people making a living at it.

If they take a long shot, it's almost always because the publisher made them to get the latest Twilight or Dan Brown book.

The rule of thumb in mass market print runs is for every book you buy, you are really paying for two.

Let me try again.

Publishing faces fairly high fixed costs (author, artists, etc.) and fairly low variable costs (each extra copy of a book is relatively cheap). Thus, a publisher wants to think long and hard before deciding to publish a particular book at all, but once they've made that decision they're happy to print far more copies than they are sure to sell. If a book sells for five times its printing cost, they'd theoretically be willing to print books with just a one-in-five chance of selling.

Consignment makes stores willing to carry such long-shots rather than just carrying the latest Twilight or Dan Brown book. If the retailer has to pay a substantial amount up front, then the retailer does not want to take any chances, and the retailer will stick to relatively sure things.

Read up on the news boy model for a more formal analysis.

 

[Gentlegamer]

In order to not say "The Wizard" or "The Ranger" every few minutes- especially since they may not be the only one of that class in the party, we are forced to refer to the PC by the player's name or "your PC."

I've personally never encountered anything like this despite having played with some who were not very "deep" into the role immersion aspect. Several needed help choosing a name, and were very receptive to the suggestions offered by other players.

In the event that a player deliberately did not choose a name for the character, our group would have probably provided a suitable nickname for the character, such as Cupcake, Tinkerbelle, Stinky Britches, etc. These nicknames hopefully would provide player/character motivation to choose a "real" character name.

 

[Krensky]

I see. You understand the publishing industry much better than the people making a living at it.

No, but I know how to read and cite my sources of 'insider' knowledge. Eric Flint's comments in his publisher's online magazine's editorial pages has more credibility and gravitas then J. Random forumite's sarcastic dismissal. Perhaps you could actually respond to his arguments in an intelligent, civil manner to explain where he is mistaken so I can adjust my valuation of his opinion on the matter.

Either that or call me an idiot directly.

Let me try again.

Please do, and spend extra time explaining how higher prices and stupider local gaming stores would be good for the industry, especially considering TSR (to my understanding) operated under the consignment model for years and it didn't work out so well for them.

Publishing faces fairly high fixed costs (author, artists, etc.) and fairly low variable costs (each extra copy of a book is relatively cheap). Thus, a publisher wants to think long and hard before deciding to publish a particular book at all, but once they've made that decision they're happy to print far more copies than they are sure to sell. If a book sells for five times its printing cost, they'd theoretically be willing to print books with just a one-in-five chance of selling.

Not disputing that. Never did. I didn't mention the economics of it to the publisher at all since, as Mr. Flint said it's no big deal.

Consignment makes stores willing to carry such long-shots rather than just carrying the latest Twilight or Dan Brown book. If the retailer has to pay a substantial amount up front, then the retailer does not want to take any chances, and the retailer will stick to relatively sure things.

In theory. From what I've seen it results in them over ordering blockbusters and ignoring the rest of their inventory because it doesn't matter since it's only a fraction of their sales compared to the blockbusters and it doesn't effect them since they don't have to pay for their mistakes and stupidity regarding it.

Also, you didn't address the point about how it screws most authors (or, for RPGs, most designers) because it means they will never earn out their advances, so the publisher is less inclined to publish a sophomore novel. For game publishers, I'm not quite sure how it would work but considering it didn't work for TSR back in the 1980s, why should it work any better now?

Read up on the news boy model for a more formal analysis.

While I never took an economics class, from what I can tell most of that model is invalidated under a consignment model since it obliterates the inventory cost.

 

[Celtavian]

RPGs aren't popular because RPG companies are not utilizing all the available methods to market and endear themselves to other, more popular forms of entertainment. It's time to grow out of their publishing sector into other venues.

They need to follow the comic industry and work with what they do best, generating ideas, allowing those intellectual properties to take on new life as movies, cartoons, toys, apparel, video games, theme parks and the like. Then the publishing side will stabilize and in fact grow as more are exposed to D&D, investigate the original game, and then try third-party games.

I understand that takes money and relationships with other industries, but I think Hasbro certainly has the capability, and look at what Green Ronin has done in their partnership with Bioware.

I doubt that would increase pen and paper RPGs. People would watch the movies, play the video games, and buy the toys, but not bother to play the pen and paper game.

When I was growing up, we did pen and paper RPGs because it was the best option for playing a fantasy character. Video games were still in their infancy. The Internet wasn't around for the common consumer. If you were a fantasy enthusiast, RPGs, books, and movies were the only way to get your fantasy fix. Now you have many more options and video games are far advanced. And the fantasy book industry is robust. Alot of competition for the dollars that might be spent on fantasy RPGs.

 

[Ariosto]

I see. You understand the publishing industry much better than the people making a living at it.

Eric Flint makes his living as an author.

When I was growing up, we did pen and paper RPGs because it was the best option for playing a fantasy character.

I think many people got into the hobby "back in the heyday" who would (and did) find in newer options -- chiefly in computer games -- more of what they really wanted. Also, the hobby was once a novelty, and a timely fad striking just right a "hot iron" -- like superhero comic books in their first decade. It hasn't been 1940 for Captain Marvel in a long time, and it hasn't been 1980 recently for D&D either.

 

[Pour]

I doubt that would increase pen and paper RPGs. People would watch the movies, play the video games, and buy the toys, but not bother to play the pen and paper game.

When I was growing up, we did pen and paper RPGs because it was the best option for playing a fantasy character. Video games were still in their infancy. The Internet wasn't around for the common consumer. If you were a fantasy enthusiast, RPGs, books, and movies were the only way to get your fantasy fix. Now you have many more options and video games are far advanced. And the fantasy book industry is robust. Alot of competition for the dollars that might be spent on fantasy RPGs.

Any exposure to their intellectual properties never hurts, and if they ended up supporting just the movies, games or toys, well that's a victory too. Exposure is essential to grow the market by allowing potential new blood to find a reason to investigate the pen-and-paper games. Show new audiences how cool monsters, adventurers and traps can be. Excite their imagination and pique their interest. They'll buy an RPG, believe me, and some of them will get hooked.

Personally, I think this starts with returning D&D to television. The influence of even one good cartoon either in the Saturday morning lineup or the afternoon spot somewhere like Cartoon Network is invaluable. That generates all sorts of toy, apparel and game purchases. What's more, it builds a growing market who will follow into more mature live-action movies and direct-to-DVD releases as they get older. D&D is certainly robust enough to have multiple animated series running, too (much like comics).

Secondly, and frankly this is something they never should have stopped producing, single-player and module-friendly video games. I respect the DDO attempt, but their award winners were always in games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights. In light of the success of Dragon Age: Origins and the tremendous anticipation of Diablo III, there is life in non-MMO's, and even better now that console technology has caught up enough to run them. Announce something like Baldur's Gate III and just watch the madness (and despite the fact Bioware wouldn't be designing it, I have faith a dozen great companies would leap at the property).

I mean the possibilities are so ripe I could keep going for hours: McFarlane Toys giving us Count Strahd, Takhisis and Orcus figures or a Tomb of Horrors roller coaster at Six Flags. These are the things that I think could really enable this industry to explode onto the scene, giving us new venues to enjoy our hobby and injecting new life at the same time.

I guess I don't equate all these amazing forms of entertainment as competition, but instead untapped mediums.